Judge Peter A. Hernandez, Case Number: 21PSCV00427, Date: 2024-04-09 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Yongyi Liu’s Motion to Enter Default Against Defendants Feng Li and Jinh Li is GRANTED.

Liu is the equitable owner and is in possession and control of the real property located at 636 East Boxwood Lane, Azusa, California 91702 (“subject property”). On or about August 18, 2005, Liu and Feng Li (“F. Li”) F. Li had a child, Meixi Li (“Meixi”). At the time Meixi was born and to date, F. Li was and has been married to another woman. On July 27, 2012, F. Li purchased and gifted the subject property to Liu to help Liu since she was raising Meixi by herself. Prior to and upon closing of the escrow of the subject property, F. Li told Liu that he had purchased the subject property for her and was giving it to her. F. Li told Liu he would transfer title to the subject property at a future time. In or about early August 2012, shortly before escrow closed on the subject property, F. Li asked Liu to come to the United States with him so that he could transfer title on the subject property from him to her and give possession of same to her. Liu came with her mom, her other daughter Helin Xu (“Xu”), and Meixi and took possession of the subject property; however, due to an unexpected event, F. Li had to return to China before the transfer paperwork was completed.

In or about December 2013, F. Li came to the United States for a short trip; Liu was then in China. F. Li promised to transfer title to the subject property to Liu when they were both in the United States. In or about April 2014, F. Li was incarcerated in China on a 13-year sentence. F. Li remains incarcerated. On March 27, 2021, while still incarcerated, F. Li purportedly signed a grant deed granting the subject property to Sunnyland International Group (“Sunnyland”).

On or about April 14, 2021, F. Li sent a Notice to Quit to Liu’s address in China, claiming therein that the subject property was owned jointly by him and his wife, Jing Li (“J. Li”), and that they had sold same to a third party. On April 16, 2021, Xi Lin (“Lin”) went to Liu’s house and told Xu that Lin was the president of Sunnyland and demanded possession of the subject property. Lin represented to Xu that F. Li had transferred title of the subject property to Sunnyland to settle a loan he owed to the company and placed a Notice to Quit on the front door of the subject property. On April 26, 2021, Xu served a 30-day Notice to Terminate Tenancy at Will on Liu.

On May 21, 2021, Liu filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Sunnyland, Lin, F. Li, J. Li and Does 1-50 for:

On August 19, 2021, the court related and consolidated this case with Case No. 21WCUD00362 and designated this case as the lead case.

On September 30, 2021, Sunnyland filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Liu, F. Li and M. Li for:

This is an unlawful detainer action regarding the subject property. On June 10, 2021, Sunnyland filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Xu, Liu and Does 1-10.

On August 19, 2021, the court related and consolidated Case No. 21PSCV0042 with this case and designated Case No. 21PSCV0042 as the lead case.

“Except as otherwise provided by statute, a summons shall be served on a person: . . . (c) Outside the United States, as provided in this chapter or as directed by the court in which the action is pending, or, if the court before or after service finds that the service is reasonably calculated to give actual notice, as prescribed by the law of the place where the person is served or as directed by the foreign authority in response to a letter rogatory. These rules are subject to the provisions of the Convention on the ‘Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents’ in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Service Convention).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 413.10, subd. (c).)

Liu moves the court for an order, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 413.10, subdivision (c), to enter default against F. Li and J. Li.[1]

The court rules on Liu’s Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) as follows: Granted as to Exhibit 1 (i.e., Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters [Service Rules]).

As a preliminary matter, the court notes that a list of the signatory countries to the Hague Service Convention can be found at www.hcch.net. China is a signatory country.

The Service Rules provide that “[e]ach Contracting State shall designate a Central Authority which will undertake to receive requests for service coming from other Contracting States and to proceed in conformity with the provisions of Articles 3 to 6…” (RJN, Exh. 1, Article 2.)

Article 3 therein provides that “[t]he authority or judicial officer competent under the law of the State in which the documents originate shall forward to the Central Authority of the State addressed a request conforming to the model annexed to the present Convention, without any requirement of legalisation or other equivalent formality. The document to be served or a copy thereof shall be annexed to the request. The request and the document shall both be furnished in duplicate.” (Id., Article 3.)

Article 4 provides that “[i]f the Central Authority considers that the request does not comply with the provisions of the present Convention it shall promptly inform the applicant and specify its objections to the request.” (Id., Article 4.)

Article 5 therein provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Central Authority of the State addressed shall itself serve the document or shall arrange to have it served by an appropriate agency, either – a) by a method prescribed by its internal law for the service of documents in domestic actions upon persons who are within its territory, or b) by a particular method requested by the applicant, unless such a method is incompatible with the law of the State addressed. . .” (Id., Article 5.)

Article 6 therein provides that “[t]he Central Authority of the State addressed or any authority which it may have designated for that purpose, shall complete a certificate in the form of the model annexed to the present Convention. The certificate shall state that the document has been served and shall include the method, the place and the date of service and the person to whom the document was delivered. If the document has not been served, the certificate shall set out the reasons which have prevented service. The applicant may require that a certificate not completed by a Central Authority or by a judicial authority shall be countersigned by one of these authorities. The certificate shall be forwarded directly to the applicant.” (Id., Article 6.)

Article 15 therein provides that “[w]here a writ of summons or an equivalent document had to be transmitted abroad for the purpose of service, under the provisions of the present Convention, and the defendant has not appeared, judgment shall not be given until it is established that –

a) the document was served by a method prescribed by the internal law of the State addressed for the service of documents in domestic actions upon persons who are within its territory, or

b) the document was actually delivered to the defendant or to his residence by another method provided for by this Convention, and that in either of these cases the service or the delivery was effected in sufficient time to enable the defendant to defend.

Each Contracting State shall be free to declare that the judge, notwithstanding the provisions of the first paragraph of this Article, may give judgment even if no certificate of service or delivery has been received, if all the following conditions are fulfilled – a) the document was transmitted by one of the methods provided for in this Convention, b) a period of time of not less than six months, considered adequate by the judge in the particular case, has elapsed since the date of the transmission of the document, c) no certificate of any kind has been received, even though every reasonable effort has been made to obtain it through the competent authorities of the State addressed. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraphs the judge may order, in case of urgency, any provisional or protective measures. (Id., Article 15 [emphasis added].)

Lui’s counsel Jason J.L. Yang (“Yang”) represents, in relevant part, as follows:

On December 23, 2021, Yang initiated the service of the complaint on F. Li and J. Li through the Hague Convention by mailing the court documents, together with its Chinese translations, to the Central Authority in China. (Yang Decl., ¶ 8, Exhs. 1 and 2 [i.e., as to J. Li].) China’s Central Authority’s (CCA) contact information can be found at https://www.hcch.net/en/states/authorities/details3/?aid=243. (Id., ¶ 8.) The address is Ministry of Justice of China, 33, Pinganli Xidajie, Xicheng District, Beijing 100035. (Id.) The contact person is Ms. Li Zhiying (Zhiying) at ivylee319@vip.sina.com. (Id.)

On January 14, 2022, the Chinese Central Authority (CCA) received Liu’s complaint and the translated documents. (Id., ¶ 10, Exh. 3.) On May 5, 2022, Yang sent an email to CCA representative Zhiying to get an update on the Hague Convention service, but did not receive any response. (Id., ¶ 12, Exh. 4.) On June 8, 2022, Yang sent another follow up to Zhiying to get an update on the Hague Convention service; again, no response was received. (Id., ¶ 13, Exh. 5.) On June 23, 2022,[2] Liu filed a motion to enter F. Li’s and J. Li’s defaults, which was set for hearing on November 1, 2022. (Id., ¶ 15). On November 1, 2022, the court continued the hearing to December 1, 2022 to allow supplemental information to be filed. (Id., ¶ 16). The hearing was eventually continued to January 26, 2023; however, in the interim, Yang realized that the address for F. Li was inaccurate. (Id., ¶¶ 17 and 18). Yang inadvertently took the motion off calendar as to both F. Li and J. Li, instead of just taking it off calendar as to F. Li and proceeding with the default as to J. Li. (Id., ¶ 18).[3]

On February 1, 2023, Yang began a new Hague Convention process against F. Li. (Id., ¶ 19). the CCA received Liu’s complaint and the translated documents. (Id., ¶ 19, Exh. 6.) On or about June 22, 2023, Yang received correspondence from the CCA indicating that Hague Convention applications should be done online instead of mailing hard copies. (Id., ¶ 20). Yang submitted Hague Convention documents that day. (Id., ¶ 21, Exh. 7.) On July 3, 2023, the CCA approved the Hague Convention request. (Id., ¶ 22, Exh. 8.) On December 21, 2023, Yang sent an email to Zhiying to get an update on the Hague Convention service, and was advised that the court had not sent back anything concerning the service. (Id., ¶ 23, Exhs. 9 and 10). On January 3, 2024, Yang sent a follow up email to Zhiying concerning the Hague Convention service; Zhiying, in response, again advised that the court had not sent back anything concerning the service. (Id., ¶ 24 and 25, Exhs. 11 and 12). Yang has not received any further response from the CCA as of the January 16, 2024 date of his declaration. (Id., ¶ 26, Exh. 13.)

The court determines that Plaintiff has effected service on J. Li and F. Li pursuant to Article 15 of the Hague Convention. The motion is granted.

[1] Liu advises that he seeks an entry of default against J. Li based on the Hague Convention service initiated on December 23, 2021 and against F. Li based on the Hague Convention service initiated on February 1, 2023. (Motion, fn. 1.)

[2] Court records reflect that the aforesaid motion was filed on July 1, 2022.